Windward. In this case the Master claims for loss of personal effects, $500. This appears to us extravagant, and we propose that a deduction should be made of $150 These deductions will be found to reduce the claim of $10,758, for personal effects, to $3,432. The result, therefore, at which we have arrived in respect of the claims comprised in Class B may be exhibited in the following form: In the "Former Statement" the claims comprised in this class amount to In the "Revised Statement" the claims comprised in this class amount to But the errors pointed out at page 318 of this Report in respect of the Commonwealth, Sea Lark, Union Jack, Crown Point, and Colcord, vessels belonging to this class, require altogether a deduction of....... So that the corrected amount of claim in the "Revised Statement" is... Therefore the total amount of the additional claims in the "Revised Statement" is And it consists of: Additional claims for vessels, amounting to $104, 651 a. Additional claims for insurances on vessels, $6,443, 370 6,448 $5,794, 687 6, 436, 922 642, 235 $172, 652 b. Additional claims for freights, amounting to amounting to 68, 001 14, 493 79, 693 65, 200 C. 226, 478 336, 699 22,000 Additional claims for cargoes, amounting to Additional claims for insurances on cargoes, amounting to 110, 221 d. Additional claims for damages, amounting to.... e. Additional claims for personal effects, amounting to. 642, 235 As regards item (a,) for vessels and insurances on vessels, it consists, with the exception of $21,800, of Further Claims for vessels already claimed for in the "Former Statement," and may be almost entirely traced to owners advancing claims simultaneously with insurance companies. An adequate allowance for the value of these vessels has, in our opinion, been made in our First Report, and we therefore cannot propose any further allowance in respect of the additional claim, ($72,652,) except as regards the sum of $21,800 just referred to, which represents a claim for the Robert Gilfillan, of 240 tons, (p. 221,) a vessel not comprised in the "Former Statement;" estimating her value at our rate of $40 per ton, we allow for her, $9,600. It follows, therefore, that for the claim (a) of $172,652 for the vessels we propose an allowance of $9,600. As regards item (b,) for freights and insurances on freights, it consists, with the exception of an amount of $61,500, entirely of Further Claims for freights already claimed for in the "Former Statement," and it must, for the same reason for which we have just disallowed similar claims in respect of the vessels, be rejected. As to the amount of $61,500, the residue of this item, it is claimed by the Atlantic Insurance Company in respect of the Contest, (page 30.) It is to be observed that in the Revised Statement the ship-owners repeat the admission made in the " Former Statement," that they have received $38,500 for insurances on ship and cargo, and for this amount the insurance company might be expected to claim; but in addition, they, for the first time, advance a claim in the "Revised Statement" for $61,500 in respect of freight by claiming for insurance on ship, cargo, and freight in the lump, a round sum of $100,000. The ship was bound on a voyage from Japan to New York, and was 1,100 tons register, so that the claim for freight is at the rate of $56 per ton; but it must be rejected, because it is an unjustifiable claim for gross freight; and according to the principles fully stated in our First Report, we substitute, in proportion to the tonnage of the vessel, an allowance which we have estimated at $4,000. It follows, therefore, that for the claim (b) of $79,093 for freight, we propose an allowance of $4,000. We now pass to item (c,) for cargoes and insurance on cargoes; but before analyzing this large additional claim, it appears to us important to premise the following general observations. As regards the form in which these additional claims are presented, there are two facts disclosed in the list of documents appended to the statements of the claims which distinguish, in a very notable manner, these additional claims from those comprised in the "Former Statement." The one is, that the majority of the new claims are presented, not by the claimants themselves, but by one or two firms who seem to have made it their business to collect claims. The other is, that in a very great number, and, we believe, in the majority of cases, there are no bills of lading filed at Washington which would evidence the shipment of the goods or the property in them. From the volume already referred to in this Report, containing "The correspondence relating to claims against Great Britain," it appears that a list of claims was prepared as early as the year 1866, and that in 1869 there was presented to the Congress of the United States a new list, which, according to the statement of Mr. Hamilton Fish, (to be found at page 444 of the same volume,) the Government of the United States "used every effort to make as complete as possible." Under these circumstances, and also when we find again a third list of claims presented to the Tribunal at Geneva, it seems scarcely credible that persons having sustained bona fide losses, unless they had already received compensation, would have omitted to present them in any of the three lists, and would have deferred doing so until the 15th of April last. We therefore expect that, if ever these additional claims come to be separately investigated and properly sifted, it will be found that many of them are fictitious; that in numerous cases, and especially in those of goods consigned to or from British ports, the owners were insured in England, and have received compensation from British underwriters; and that in other cases, particularly in those where no bills of lading have been filed, consignors are now claiming for goods, the property in which has passed to consignees, who either are claiming at the same time, or have been paid by English underwriters. We have not, however, felt ourselves justified in acting upon this expectation, but have, with the exception of a few cases which we shall particularly notice, adopted the course pointed out on page 7 of our First Report. We accordingly propose to deduct, as before, 12 per cent. from the gross amount of the additional claims for goods, profits, commissions, and insurances, and to regard, for the purpose of the present estimate, the balance as representing the value of the goods, free on board, together with ordinary interest from the time of shipment until capture. This deduction of 12 per cent. is justified by the reasons fully stated in the introductory part of our First Report, especially as the additional claims for cargo here also include sometimes claims for profits at the rate of 50 and even 100 per cent., as well as claims for commissions, and damages for non-arrival of goods, and moreover appear to involve "double claims for single losses" to a considerable amount. Having made these preliminary observations we proceed to consider this item (c) of $336,699, which comprises claims for cargoes, profits, commissions, and insurances thereon; and we will begin by specifying those particular claims which we think ought to be rejected. 1. W. McGilvery, page 219.-This is a vessel not claimed for in the "Former Statement," and for her cargo a claim is made of $4,752; but as the Jeff Davis is not one of the cruisers mentioned in the United States Case, this claim must, for the reasons stated at page 2 of the British Counter Case, in reference to the Boston and the Sallie, be certainly rejected. 2. Anna F. Schmidt, page 16.-Baker and Hamilton, of Sacramento, California, claimed in the "Former Statement" $6,474 partly directly, and partly through insurance companies. In the "Revised Statement" they advance a claim of $13,078, which is all but double the former amount. We consider this to constitute in all probability a double claim for a single loss, and propose therefore to reject this additional claim of $6,604. 3. Sea Lark, pages 78-82.-Here Osgood and Stetson admit having received from the Merchants' Mutual Marine Insurance Company $1,000, but do not give credit for this sum, although it is also at the same time claimed by the insurance company. This therefore constitutes a double claim for a single loss, and gives rise to the deduction of $1,000. 4. Sea Lark.-F. M. and Mary Rollins claim $10,000, but admit having received from insurance companies $1,565 in gold, which, according to the rate of exchange inferred from the case of the Morning Star, as stated in page 319 of this Report, would amount to $2,150 currency. There must therefore be a deduction of $2,150. 5. T. B. Wales, page 96.-There are here two additional claims, viz, a claim by Young and Emmons of $3,588 for loss on cargo above insurance, and a claim by Samuel Stevens of $3,500 for loss on cargo and profits above insurance. On comparing the claims made by these persons and by the companies with whom they had effected insurances in the "Revised Statement" and in the "Former Statement," we have scarcely any doubt that these claims have been already discharged by the insurance companies who are claiming at the same time, and we therefore reject these two claims, which together amount to $7,088. 6. Good Hope, page 218.-Here the Equitable Safety Insurance Company have advanced two additional claims, one of $10,000 as insurers on cargo, and another of $10,000 as insurers on ship for Jasigi, Goddard & Co. On comparing the claims made by this firm, and by companies as insurers for them in the "Original List" of 1866, with those in the "List presented to Congress in 1869," as well as with those in the "Former" and in the "Revised Statements," we think it can be proved, almost beyond a doubt, that the additional claim by the insurance company of $10,000 in respect of the cargo must be rejected as a double claim for a single loss. 7. Crown Point.-It appears from the "Original List" that M. Heller & Brother, of San Francisco, and J. Heller & Brother, of New York, are the same firm; and from this fact it can be inferred, with scarcely any doubt, from the claims which M. Heller and J. Heller advance for loss on cargo, (at pp. 125, 126 of the former, and pp. 152-154 of the Revised Statement.) that they are making double claims for single losses, at least to the extent of $9,044; we say at least, because we cannot help viewing with considerable suspicion a claim made at the same time by a firm of William Heller & Co., of New York and San Francisco, (page 125 of the "Former," and page 151 of the "Revised Statement,") for very nearly the same amount as that claimed by John Heller. We therefore deduct the sum of $9,044. Adding then together the seven amounts of $4,752, $6,604, $1,000, $2,150, $7,088, $10,000, and $9,044, which we reject for the reasons just stated, and subtracting their total amount of $40,638 from the amount claimed for cargoes, namely, $336,699, we obtain a balance of $296,061. For reasons already stated, we deduct from this balance 12 per cent., and thus obtain the sum of $260,534, which, for the purpose of the present estimate, we propose to allow, instead of the claim of $336,699. As regards item (d,) of $22,000 for damages, there are two claims, each of $10,000-one by the widow of the First mate, and the other by the Second mate of the Crown Point-for damages, loss of wages, and personal effects. We have assumed that of this sum $1,000 is claimed for personal effects, and have therefore excluded it from this item; and the remaining $19,000 we put down as a claim for damages and loss of wages, time, &c., which, for reasons fully stated in our First Report, must be rejected. The residue of this item, viz, $3,000, represents a claim for damages occasioned by the Jeff Davis, (see page 219,) with which, for the reason already stated, we have nothing to do. It follows, therefore, that we propose to reject entirely the claim (d) of $22,000 for damages. As regards item (e,) of $31,191 for personal effects, it will be found, on referring to our former Report on Class C, (page 26,) that the claims for loss of personal effects on board the vessels comprised in that class are especially extravagant, and that we consequently made a general allowance for these claims, at the rate of $3 per ton. This allowance appeared and still appears to us to be, on the whole, sufficient to cover any loss probably sustained in respect of personal effects; and as the "Revised Statement" does not comprise any new vessels belonging to this class except the Robert Gilfillan, (which, as already stated, we put on one side,) we do not think that the additional claim (e) for personal effects calls for any additional allowance. The result, therefore, at which we have arrived as to the additional claims under Class C may be exhibited in the following form: CLASS D. In the "Former Statement" the claims comprised in this class amount to ... But of this amount there has been withdrawn, in the case of the Emma Jane, (page 37,) the sum of.. Leaving a sum of.... To be compared with the sum claimed in the "Revised Statement $730, 959 9,000 721, 959 887, 831 So that the total amount of the additional claims in the "Revised Statement" is 165, 872 As regards item (a) for vessels and insurances, it consists ofNew Claims, (i. e., claims for vessels not comprised in "Former Statement,") $102,459. Further Claims, (i. e., fresh claims for vessels comprised in "Former Statement,") $14,500. The New Claims, amounting to $102,459, are-for the Tacony, 295 tons, (page 206;) the Golden Rocket, 610 tons, (page 269;) and the Vigilant, 650 tons, (page 271.) In the absence of all information as to the class or condition of these vessels, we value them at our average rate of $40 per ton, which gives an allowance of $62,200. The Further Claims, amounting to $14,500, consist of a claim of $500 for the Josiah Achom, and $14,000 for the Estelle. As to the Josiah Achom it will be found that at page 28 of our First Report there was a claim of $7,500 for the vessel and her outfit, which we felt ourselves compelled to allow, because there was no information given as to her tonnage, destination, or employment. The "Revised Statement" supplies the required information, and as our valuation of this vessel of 125 tons would be considerably less than the amount of $7,500 already allowed, we think the additional claim must certainly be rejected. As to the Estelle, on referring to page 26 of our First Report it will be seen that we there rejected the claim of $4,000 which was made by an insurance company, because it did not seem in any way to represent the value of the vessel, for which no claim was advanced in the "Former Statement." In the "Revised Statement" a claim is made of $14,000 for the value of this vessel, (300 tons,) and although it is somewhat in excess of our average valuation, still, judging from the trade in which she was engaged, we assume that she must have been a vessel of a good class, and we propose, therefore, that the claim of $14,000 should be allowed. We have thus estimated the New claims at $62,200, and the Further claims at $14,000, and therefore propose an allowance of $76,200 for the claim (a) of $116,959 in respect of the vessels. As regards item (c,) for cargoes and insurances thereon, it consists of a claim of $21,155 by the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, for in |